 |
| 
CalvinnHobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 12/24/2004 8:46 AM (GMT -6) |   | Guys, I would like to put together something of a CV quasi-bibliography for OV articulation and justification. I've greatly appreciated your depth of knowledge, willingness to share it, and the clear and courteous manner in which you do so on this forum. I'm not an open theist, but firmly believe that most of the critics of the OV whom I have met have reduced your position to simplistic caricatures. I want to gain as thorough a grasp of where you're coming from as possible, and I'd particularly really like to use this board's history to do so. You guys have had such great interaction here.
I wonder if you would be so kind as to throw me (and all such "seekers") a list of threads from this board's history which will give someone with my training as thorough of an articulation and justification of your position as possible (at least given this forum's material to date). I realize you may only have a few thread titles in mind. I don't expect you to have anything approximating an encyclopedic memory of who said what, where, and with whom. But anything you could do to help would be terrific. I'll even take whatever threads you can just pull off the top of your heads (look back through old topics if you have the time and don't mind).
I think this would be a great resource for seekers, perhaps taking us a little deeper into the philosophy underneath Greg's work done at the popular level. If you wouldn't mind making the investment, it might be worth first just brainstorming out loud on this thread; once you've all come up with ideas, then we can maybe try to organize them in some systematic or "this-building-on-that" manner to facilitate learning--read this thread, then this, then this, etc. I'll take whatever you have to offer. I realize you all have busy lives. Contribute whatever thread topics you feel like, if you could.
Who knows, a bibliography like this might be a great preface or appendix for the new opentheismboard.org, should that be where everything ends up. It might even give you something to refer your future forum questioners to so you don't have to address the same questions and criticisms ad infinitum.
And if you really want to challenge yourselves  , you might even consider working up a few different such CV bibliographies for people coming in with different levels of philosophical and theological training.
[[[My logic background covers categorical propositions (w/ squares of opposition and immediate deductions) and syllogisms (w/ rules and fallacies); propositional logic (w/ truth functions, tables, and argument forms); and natural deduction in propositional logic (w/ rules of implication). I've not yet studied predicate logic or probability in induction.]]]
Much of your interaction on this forum, frankly, is too pedagogically beneficial to leave floating as fragments in the wake of the discussion board's history.
Respectfully,
Shane Moe
"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 12/24/2004 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Shane,
I appreciate the kudos. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to track down a list of threads--perhaps later this evening I'll have a chance. I am currently putting the finishing touches on a 50+ page paper entitled "Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future" that Greg, Tom, and I hope to get published. As soon as I finish (hopefully by tomorrow), I'll post a link where y'all can download a .PDF version.
God bless and Merry Christmas.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
CalvinnHobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 12/30/2004 10:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Okay, maybe my hopes are a little too far fetched here.
To simplify, does even one thread come to anyone's mind (even if the recollection is hazy) that, thinking back on, you would say, "Yeah, we pretty much covered the logic of the OV inside out on that one."? I remember seeing a lengthy discussion of the OV and the principle of bivalence. Would this thread be indispensable in the CV OV canon? Others?
Please throws us a bone.
"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/30/2004 1:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Calvin-
Can't recall titles, but there were several good threads on the logic of the OV. Some key words that come to mind are "bivalence," "counterfactual(s)," "subjunctive," and "contingent/-gency," etc. Threads that dealt with biblical stuff that I recall are several that dealt with Genesis 18, Jeremiah 18, and Romans 9. There were a couple of good threads on Romans 9. There were a couple of good threads too on anthropomorphism(s) that were, I think, devastating to the classical view. That's OV stuff.
On providence and moral evil there's the "Carlie" thread which was, I think, the most memorable thread of all. We haven't yet really had it out over natural evil.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/30/2004 2:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Calvin-
Here's the one on anthropomorphism. Really good.
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=22&whichpage=1
Here's some on Genesis 18:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=412
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1271
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=788&whichpage=1
Here's the Carlie thread:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3043&whichpage=1
Here's a memorable one on Jeremiah 26:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=50
Here's the Bobbie Vortex thread. It's funny, and there's some good stuff here:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1940&whichpage=1
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/30/2004 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | |
I believe,
God, infinitely wise, with universal knowledge; knows all those things, which are possible as possible, certain as certain, contingent as contingent, and all those things, which are foreordained as predestined conclusion.
God, with an infinite foreknowledge or intelligence, without fatalistic determinism, remains free to make decisions and alter purposes according to His own will and wisdom; He is not a prisoner of His own foreknowledge.
That I am the desire of God and His being; loved and born to love, this is the miracle of life; Gods creation.
This goes real well with Pudding 
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 12/31/2004 9:17 AM (GMT -6) | | TIM
Hope you see this. I tried to e-mail you through the board but guess it didn't get through. Where did you get the quote you have at the bottom of your posts? I also wanted to ask you a couple of questions. Please e-mail at sirkel@sbcglobal.net
Peace
Ron | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 1/3/2005 3:01 AM (GMT -6) | | I don’t hold to a open theism position but neither do I hold to classical theism. I believe that both of them are true in a sense, that if you bring both themes together the true picture I believe emerges. I believe God does know all the future by foreknowledge and yet depending on how you’re looking at it and from what position he doesn’t. He does but he doesn’t? Contradiction. No just a true and real paradox something which seems to contradict itself but really doesn’t . There are two realms the eternal but then there is physical time. God can’t know the future in one sense for there is no such thing as a future which hasn’t occurred. That would be like asking someone what the weather was like yesterday in the Land Of The Wizard Of Oz. It wasn’t anything because it doesn’t exist.
If It doesn’t exist it doesn’t exist and if the future doesn’t exist as of yet lets settle on the issue it doesn’t exist either. The real issue is however is can God assess what we think of as the future the following way, that is once the future does occur, it becomes a reality. It then has become real. But what about now by sending a revelation back through time. Think of us as in our present. In a very real way there could be a revelation beam [if I might put it that way] blasting from the east [consider the east as our future] and going above our position and then blasting back to the west [which we’ll call the past]
In this way God could in real terms know all tings by foreknowledge and not be involved in any way of making decisions of who would be saved and who would not. Absolute free will is protected. This actually does line up with what physics have suggested would be the case if one could travel above the speed of light and that is time would go retrograde, or backwards in time. Thus you have God in scripture speaking certain places from a time perspective and other places he’s talking from the standpoint of a eternal perspective. From time lets say God didn’t know exactly what Abraham would do if he would offer up Isaac…..but from the spirit, from a eternal standpoint he did.
I would call this position classical open theism which brings both positions together and if allowed would bring peace between the two groups.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 1/3/2005 3:07 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/3/2005 3:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika-
Now would be a good time for a funny picture, something Sci-fi maybe.
Shane, I forget Bobber (hi Bobber!). There's an interesting thread where Bobber suggested this and we discussed it. It read it when I need some humor (sorry Bobber ), but check it out for yourself: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3339&whichpage=1
Take care,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 1/3/2005 3:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi
Well I guess just about everyone looks at the others position of being somewhat humorous in a sense. I look upon say the Calvanistic position as being humorous in the sense that I just can't believe that Jesus would be saying to a people I was willing to gather you but you were not willing...but then I look upon as many actually do upon open theism position that when Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times that Jesus was merely guessing...that he would risk all of his work of redemption on a guess? As you know many can not accept that as well....I wonder if classical open theism which Ive explained might just answer the question 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/3/2005 3:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Stop making me laught Bobber! You're killing me.
 | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:50 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|